In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 01 2016 10:32 farvacola wrote: As plansix suggests, ctual prosecutions for incest usually accompany some other criminal charge or are otherwise exclusively levied against parents. Cousins banging or the like aren't usually getting prosecuted save for extreme circumstances, and most incest laws are actually just a count stacking mechanism for hitting sexual offenders harder.
Well yeah, not like they wanna jail most of those in the southern states
On March 01 2016 10:56 Deathstar wrote: People with large influence in the democratic party are superdelegates, so as a former President Bill would be a superdelegate. Barack Obama, Al Gore and Carter are also superdelegates.
These are people who are overwhelmingly Democratic and are invested in the party as opposed to the common voter who sways from right to left. That said, it's only ~700 superdelegates in total. While it's a large number, these are elected Democratic officials.
I am curious, what does it mean for them to be "overwhelmingly democratic", in comparison to the 'common voters' ? I don't think there is any merit to a claim that your average democrat "sways from left to right" - not that it should matter, at all.
It is extremely unlikely that they would use their influence to overturn a popular vote. It is a good way to lose an election. The electoral college is technically not required to vote the same way their state did either. Part of politics is based on a respect for the process, rather than creating rules to force the process to be "fair".
Except the superdelegates are specifically there to be able to overturn the popularly supported candidate. We could discuss why it hasn't happened, but even DWS said that's what they are there for.
Every time we hear about the delegate count with them included, you're seeing them being used as they usually are. Actually overturning a nomination was always an idle threat as has been mentioned it would be the end of the campaign.
They are meant to break a tie or settle a fight for the nomination at the convention if someone doesn't have a clear majority. That is why they exist.
The Times was left leaning before the era of "choose your flavor of political bias" news network. Back when left and right were just ways you leaned, rather than lines that were drawn and never to be crossed ever.
Honestly, with a few tweaks, the google news aggregator is one of the best ways to consume media so long as you have a general idea as to the major news outlets. You can get the whole spectrum on a single issue without much hassle, and it also helps break single media market tunnel vision.
On March 01 2016 10:56 Deathstar wrote: People with large influence in the democratic party are superdelegates, so as a former President Bill would be a superdelegate. Barack Obama, Al Gore and Carter are also superdelegates.
These are people who are overwhelmingly Democratic and are invested in the party as opposed to the common voter who sways from right to left. That said, it's only ~700 superdelegates in total. While it's a large number, these are elected Democratic officials.
I am curious, what does it mean for them to be "overwhelmingly democratic", in comparison to the 'common voters' ? I don't think there is any merit to a claim that your average democrat "sways from left to right" - not that it should matter, at all.
It is extremely unlikely that they would use their influence to overturn a popular vote. It is a good way to lose an election. The electoral college is technically not required to vote the same way their state did either. Part of politics is based on a respect for the process, rather than creating rules to force the process to be "fair".
Except the superdelegates are specifically there to be able to overturn the popularly supported candidate. We could discuss why it hasn't happened, but even DWS said that's what they are there for.
Every time we hear about the delegate count with them included, you're seeing them being used as they usually are. Actually overturning a nomination was always an idle threat as has been mentioned it would be the end of the campaign.
They are meant to break a tie or settle a fight for the nomination at the convention if someone doesn't have a clear majority. That is why they exist.
@kwizach: I don't really pay attention to writers, partly because I'd rather judge the piece based on its merit rather than on my opinion of the author and partly because I'm lazy/ suck at names. Cilizza does ring a bell though, and I think I have a vaguely bad opinion of him.
@Deathstar: True, fair enough. I think after Jeff Bezos bought them the quality started going down though and the editorial board got sidelined by the imperative to drive more traffic.
@GH: Think of superdelegates like a failsafe. Usually, no effect and people complain about them because they cost extra money and maintenance, etc. However, when shit goes down they're useful-- if you don't have them, you get a nuclear meltdown or Trump.
they did, but then they came out with the thing about releasing transcripts which was a bit of a wtf. also, theyve had some weird beef or love/hate relationship with the clintons for the longest time. best selection of editorials by far though, i love kurgman, blow, brooks, collins and the rest.
I remember David Brooks during the summer saying "Sanders won't be able to get support from working class Democrats" on PBS. And he completely missed Trump. Fucker was so wrong lol.
idk, its entertaining. he's this bewildered old conservative who doesnt understand what happened to his party and occasionally comes out with a lucid column
plus the thing he does with gail collins is super adorable
Federal officials have rejected a complaint by an entomologist who charged that the government has tried to suppress negative research findings about a widely used pesticide, in a complex case involving monarch butterflies, scientific freedom and the safety of the nation’s food supply.
The confidential decision by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was disclosed Monday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer), a nonprofit group that offers aid and advice to whistleblowers and scientists.
Jonathan Lundgren, a senior research entomologist for the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, has been studying the effect of neonicotinoids, which he described as among the most widely used pesticides in the world today.
“We were starting to see it in places where it doesn’t belong,” Lundgren told the Guardian. “We’re starting to find it in plants that aren’t being treated. It prompted us to ask, ‘Is it hurting bees? Is it hurting monarch butterflies?’ We know their populations are decreasing. They’re at about 10% of their historic population.”
Peer executive director Jeff Ruch said the pesticide’s harm to monarch butterflies could not be understated because monarchs pollinate flowering plants, like almond trees.
“The fate of pollinators on the planet and in this country are an issue,” Ruch told the Guardian. “The absence of pollinators would have a devastating impact on our food security. Polinnators are important to a huge portion of our food supply ... anything that flowers.”
One reason for the decrease is a drop in the amount of milkweed, which monarch larvae eat, Lundgren said. But research by Lundgren and his team also found that 60% of the milkweed in their South Dakota study area was contaminated by the pesticide, which even at low levels causes monarch larvae to grow much more slowly and reach much smaller size.
The U.S. Justice Department cannot force Apple to provide the FBI with access to a locked iPhone data in a routine Brooklyn drug case, a magistrate judge ruled Monday.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein's written decision gives support to the company's position in its fight against a California judge's order that it create specialized software to help the FBI hack into an iPhone linked to the San Bernardino terrorism investigation. Apple's filing to oppose the order by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym in California is due by Friday. ... Orenstein concluded that Apple is not obligated to assist government investigators against its will and noted that Congress has not adopted legislation that would achieve the result sought by the government.
"How best to balance those interests is a matter of critical importance to our society, and the need for an answer becomes more pressing daily, as the tide of technological advance flows ever farther past the boundaries of what seemed possible even a few decades ago," Orenstein wrote. "But that debate must happen today, and it must take place among legislators who are equipped to consider the technological and cultural realities of a world their predecessors could not begin to conceive."
SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had arrived at a sure-fire, crowd-pleasing section of his stump speech at rally here on Monday, and he was going to milk it for everything it was worth.
“Immigration is a law enforcement issue, immigration is a national security issue, but immigration is also, powerfully, an economic issue,” Cruz said.
Shouts of “Yeah!” reverberated among the several hundred people gathered inside Shrine Auditorium.
“When you allow 12 million people to come into this country illegally,” Cruz continued, “they take jobs from American citizens, they take jobs from legal immigrants, and they drive down the wages of people all across this country.”
More cheers followed from the overwhelmingly white audience members who had come to hear Cruz speak a day before Super Tuesday in this majority Hispanic city.
“Democrats support illegal immigration because they think they’ll get votes there,” Cruz said.
That was the setup. Here comes the punch line:
“You know, the new politically correct term for ‘illegal immigrant’ is ‘undocumented immigrant,’” Cruz said.
Uproarious laughter ensued, as if the crowd had just been treated to one of the all-time great zingers from a skilled standup comedian.
The emotional resonance of the immigration issue among the Republican base can hardly be overstated.
This is where Clinton will have to appeal to younger voters which has been a shit show when taking on Sanders. She comes off as arrogant, conniving and she sure as hell can't bring up her husbands economic policy as that walks right into a NAFTA trap which has no support anywhere left or right.
So she'll have to propose something that will appeal to Millennials and young voters. If she doesn't she loses and if she wins and does nothing well then she is a one term president. Whether it's drug reform, criminal reform, she has to put her money where her mouth is and the money is largely coming from Wall Street which is why nobody trusts her.
EPT
